Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are...That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. - John 17:11b, 21

Thursday, November 8, 2018

As
promised in Part 1 of this series, the time has come to reveal the unnamed lecturer quoted in that post—B. H.
(Brigham Henry) Roberts.

B.
H. Roberts is probably the most prolific author that has emerged from The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Back in 2011, Deseret News
published a list of the "Top 10 LDS 'Intellectuals'" (link),
and B. H. Roberts was #1 in that list, attesting to the high level of his
contributions.

Truman
G. Madsen, in his biography Defender of the Faith - The B. H. Roberts Story,
had the following to say concerning Roberts massive, literary output:

Roberts
total literary output included well over thirty books, three hundred articles
in such publications as the Improvement Era, the Millennial Star, the
Juvenile Instructor and the Contributor, and over a thousand
sermons and discourses. Not included in this count are numerous tracts,
pamphlets, and sermons published in various newspapers and magazines. (Page
441)

To
my knowledge, I have in my possession all of Roberts published books; plus a
good portion of his "three hundred articles", dozens of his
discourses/lectures and sermons, and some of his tracts and pamphlets. Included
in my collection of Roberts' contributions was the discourse which is the
source of the excerpt I provided in Part 1 of this series. Titled, Mormonism
and Christianity, the discourse was
delivered by Roberts at Salt Lake City, Utah, January 23rd, 1898. This
discourse is included in volume 5, of the 5 volume Collected Discourses
Delivered By President Wilfred Woodruff, His Two Counselors, The Twelve
Apostles and Others—Compiled and Edited by Brian H. Stuy, First Edition,
1992—pages 376-388 (the excerpt being from the opening of the discourse, pp.
376, 377).

The
selection published in Part 1 ended with the following:

This was the great question[i.e. Is Christ divided?] which the Apostle of the Gentiles propounded to those
Saints in Corinth, among whom divisions began to appear. These divisions,
however, were incipient as compared with those which exist in Christendom
today; and if those divisions existing in the primitive Church at Corinth
called forth this stern reproof from the great Apostle of the Gentiles, I
sometimes wonder what he would say to torn, distracted Christendom of today!
Would he not with increased emphasis demand of this Babel that exists now in
Christendom, an answer to the question, Is Christ divided?

The plain inference of this Scripture, of course, is that Christ
is not to be divided; that men are under condemnation who say that they are of
Paul, or of Cephas, or of Apollos. It plainly declares that the Church of
Christ is to be one.

Roberts
then continued with:

Yet, as men look upon Christendom in its divided condition
today, they very naturally find themselves somewhat perplexed with this
confusion that exists concerning the Christian religion...(Page 377)

Now, the "divided condition" that Roberts correctly
discerned 120 years ago, was more pervasive in his day than in Paul's; and the
"divided condition" in our day, is significantly greater than in Roberts'. (Does not reason demand that Paul's
"great question" has even more
relevance in our day?)

The rest of Roberts'
discourse is devoted to what he believes is the most consistent solution to
Christendom's "divided condition"—the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Roberts' support for his view
begins with the affirmation of a Great Apostasy. Though all non-Apostolic See churches—i.e.
churches which are not direct descendants of those great churches founded by
Christ's apostles and historically perpetuated via apostolic/episcopal
succession—hold to some variant of a Great Apostasy, Roberts' understanding is
one of a TOTAL APOSTASY, which in turn demands a restoration rather than a mere
reformation to correct.

After affirming this TOTAL
APOSTASY, Roberts provides his interpretation of the four marks/notes which
have been used throughout the history of Christianity to identify the Church
that Jesus Christ founded—apostolic, one, holy, universal.
Roberts' interpretation of what constitutes a church as 'apostolic' is unique,
in that he believes his church actually has living apostles. He then goes on to
link the issue of 'oneness' with those who follow the direction and guidance of
those living apostles.

And so, though some
commonality exists between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints view
of 'unity and the Christian Church', with other interpretations, ultimately,
their view remains unique.

Contributors

Total Pageviews

Getting History Right

The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.) [http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf]

And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this…To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. – John Henry Newman